Born in Mumbai to Sindhi parents who migrated from Pakistan and educated in Bangalore, Indira Jaising got her law degree in 1962. She was the first woman to become a senior advocate at Bombay High Court.

Among the cases she has fought are the one that won Syrian Christian women inheritance rights

She has fought the case of IAS officer Rupan Deol Bajaj who charged IPS officer K.P.S. Gill with sexual harassment, represented victims of the Bhopal gas tragedy, fought for the rights of pavement dwellers facing eviction in Mumbai, and represented Gita Hariharan in a landmark case of a woman’s right to her child.

During Emergency, she provided free legal aid to striking railway workers, resulting in her office being put under surveillance

She later founded Lawyers’ Collective, which funds and advises the poor who are facing legal action

She is co-authoring a book (under the aegis of Lawyers Collective) that is meant as a legal primer on sexual harassment at the workplace

She was appointed additional solicitor general in 2009

***

An old Remington typewriter, a poster of Bollywood film Indira, starring Hema Malini as a legal crusader, posters on violence against women that say ‘Use the Law to Resist It’, shelves lined with law books—the stage props that make up Indira Jaising’s office space only partly depart from the norm, and she’s quick to make light of the film poster. The additional solicitor general has two firsts connected to her name—she’s the first woman to occupy that post; she was at the forefront of the campaign against Justice Ramaswami, leading to the first impea­chment proceedings against a Supreme Court judge. These days, however, she’s in the news as the person who shattered the omerta around sexual harassment by senior judges—which many describe as the judiciary’s worst kept secret. “I’d rather be remembered as a woman who raised the issue of integrity in the highest court of the land,” she says, “though, yes, I did lend my voice to the interns who spoke up against sexual harassment by senior judges of the court.”

In a span of two months, two senior judges—Justice A.K. Ganguly and Justice Swatanter Kumar—have been named by young interns complaining of sexual harassment. There have always been whispers in legal circles about some judges’ predatory instincts. But never before has the way women, and young interns at that, are treated by their illustrious seniors, and judges at that, come out the way it now has.

In l’affaire Ganguly, Jaising wrote to the prime minister reminding him that sexual harassment was a gross violation of human rights and requested him to make a reference to the Supreme Court to remove Justice Ganguly from his post as head of the West Bengal Human Rights Commission. She followed that with a bombshell: an article that the Indian Express front-paged and banner-headlined ‘Is this how you would treat your daughter, My Lord?’ In this she laid bare the harrowing details of what the intern went through, using with permission passages from her affidavit to an SC committee. She says she felt compelled to do so. Justice Ganguly, who has now stepped down, had till then been adamantly refusing to do so.

Predictably, her actions have set off a spate of conspiracy theories. What did she have against the judges? Was she working with the UPA to demolish the reputation of the judges who had indicted the government in their pronouncements? All Jaising will say in response is that she’s on the side of women. And staunchly so.

Feisty, left-of-centre, stubborn—these are some of the adjectives fellow advocates deploy to describe her. Divided though they may be in matters of ideology, they all agree without debate that in her overlapping identities as a human being, a woman, a women’s rights activist and a lawyer, Jaising speaks the language she practises. There are many who believe that, had it not been for Jaising’s intervention, the issue of sexual harassment in courts would have remained under wraps.

Justices A.K. Ganguly and Swatanter Kumar have been named by interns as perpetrators of sexual harassment. Indira has stood by the interns.

Already she’s under attack: some say she has tarnished the image of the judiciary. She has also been accused of bringing a bad name to the institution of the Supreme Court. “If you ask me, leaking the affidavit against Justice Ganguly was unethical,” Justice Srik­rishna has said in an interview to the Economic Times. Jaising has a well-tempered response. “I respect Justice Srikr­i­shna,” she says. “But it is important to separate the judge from the judiciary. I think what he is talking about is the criminal justice process, and it is important to separate this from the truth-seeking process. I’m afraid Justice Srik­­r­i­shna has conflated the two. We are asking for the truth to be acknowledged.”

Though complaints against Supreme Court judges have been made by women in the past, there never has been the sort of acknowledgement of the truth that the additional solicitor general is seeking. Her silver hair and status as a senior member of the profession haven’t guaranteed protection either: it is just a few days back that a senior counsel who referred to Jaising as “that woman” had to be given a quick lesson on the proper way of addressing a woman colleague. She also says she’s been sexually harassed on occasion and has had to confront the perpetrators—sometimes physically. In the inflexibly hierarchical structure that defines the court and its functions, she says, those in the lower rungs, especially women and young women interns, are often made to experience acute inequalities. “The judiciary is the last bastion of a feudal and hierarchical structure—and that has to change,” she says. “And unfortunately, I have to add, judges just can’t take women seriously.”

There have been three unintended consequences of Jaising’s actions. The first is positive: the legal fraternity is pleased that the horrible truth is out in the open. Second, men have taken to play the “weaker sex” in mock admissions of fear, such as, “Oh! We just won’t be seen alone with a female colleague!” The third is worrying: some say they’d rather not hire women or have women working with them.

Be that as it may, activists like Kavita Krishnan, president of the All-India Progressive Women’s Association, are all praise for Jaising and her work. “She stands like a shield for women, and she’s here to uphold the Constitution,” says Kavita, who worked with Jaising, lawyer Vrinda Grover and other women activists towards the creation of a law against sexual harassment at the work place—which is here to stay, and which has come to haunt the two judges.

Senior advocate Rajiv Dhavan, who has been vocal on the issue of sexual harassment and has no problems with the new law, says his only concern, however, is that the rigorous practice of going by the law should not be overlooked in the atmosphere of populism that surrounds the issue. “The issue depends on the girl’s affidavit,” he says. “Nothing has been proved. But there’s been a huge indictment by the media and others. The Supreme Court acted in excess by denying jurisprudence and by going by the prima facie view. The complaints of the interns have to be tested by the law.” It’s a view senior advocate Manoj Goel shares: “Populism,” he says, “should not ride roughshod over constitutional values.” And Dhavan is firm that, just because they are retired judges, they can’t be said to be above legal scrutiny.

Those are valid, well-reasoned positions. But as to the charges from others that she has caused systemic damage, Jaising says, “I have no vested interests. My approach is based on my commitment to equality. I am not indebted to judges or colleagues.” It’s a commitment that has seen her fight for fair wages for labourers and take up the cause of pavement dwellers and other marginalised groups. “They have nothing but the law to protect them,” she asserts. That belief was amply on display when she defended the Right to Education when some private institutions contested it. Says journalist Olga Tellis, who has known Jaising for a long time, “She’s committed to the causes she champions and stubbornly holds on to what she believes in.”

The workplace law and the Visakha guidelines, which bear the imprints of Jaising, the late Justice J.S. Verma and Justice Leila Seth among others, have come to bear upon those who might have thought their high offices would bring them immunity. As Jaising says, these young women have grown up in a different climate: the Visakha guidelines, dealing with sexual harassment in public places, came in 1997, when the interns may have been in their teens. They have seen it in practice, and perhaps that’s why they are confidently able to demand equal treatment. Things are changing.

Due to retire around April, Jaising plans to devote her time to Hindustani classical music, which she is known to practise (as a vocalist) with the same rigour she brings to her legal work. The young interns who have spoken out—and all women at work—will remain indebted to that distinctive voice, smoky and at times raspy, for putting its considerable strength behind their cause.

If you wish your letter to be considered for publication in the print magazine, we request you to use a proper name, with full postal address - you could still maintain your anonymity, but please desist from using unpublishable sobriquets and handles

Last decade has seen a bunch of cases undergoing trial by media with unsubstantiated selective leaks from time to time. Then justice quoting the "collective conscience" of the society to punish the defendents.

In our country many people with power and control think like this "All are equal before law but some are more equal than others. For those people we need persons like Indira Jaising . I like her for this clear quote "“It is important to separate the judge from the judiciary" . I would like to add attorneys also into that category as many of them think that no one can touch them even if they violate rules.

"...“If you ask me, leaking the affidavit against Justice Ganguly was unethical,” ..." -
This is an misleading statement to make, to say the least. That released "affidavit", if it were to qualify as an affidavit in truth, should have carried the name, signature, and time and place of the person who made it.
But what was printed in the public domain (newspapers) did not have those particulars. Hence in my judgement it was a fake document circulated as an affidavit.
Obviously, a cover-up operation was in the offing. Unless proven otherwise now, it was a set-up for Justice Ganguly. It is the same exercise to fool others as in Mahabharat: "Ashwathama hata (....iti Gaja)" by Judhisthir.

We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism

But:

1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.

2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads

3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site

4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.

5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT

6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.

7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.

8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.

9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:

a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you